How do you interpret "A Right to Housing"?

DubCount

Graces7 wrote: »

What do other countries do? The gap between the ideal and the fulfilment of the ideal is wide.

In the UK the NHS fulfilled the ideal of the universal right to health care. By making it freely available to all.. How would that translate to housing?

And also in the UK education is universally free.. as are books etc therein.

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

jelem

DubCount wrote: »

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

"for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, " and the time of the surgeon whom is the same as paid
for by tax payers.
just like ministers may be doctors and ministers of government "2 jobs" which is not possible but fooled into
thinking it is.
the ghetos were design error by government appointed whom sought cheapest method and surronded plans with
graphical make believe "excellant social areas and green space etc." .
All is based on capitalism and greed which has to be removed first before even discussing housing\health\services
in ireland.

the_syco

jelem wrote: »

the ghetos were design error by government appointed whom sought cheapest method and surronded plans with
graphical make believe "excellant social areas and green space etc." .
All is based on capitalism and greed which has to be removed first before even discussing housing\health\services
in ireland.

The ghetto are a collection of free houses. Otherwise do you expect those who don't work to be placed next to a family where both parents have to work 60 hours a week each to afford their house?

Or do you give everyone the same house, for free, regardless of where they may work?

Graces7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Housing is a Human Right under numerous international human rights instruments already, particularly Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the one I personally prefer to go with when asked -


Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


How do I expect it to work? The same as any other rights which people are entitled to be able to exercise, a right which is protected by the State and provided for by the State, same as the right to education, healthcare and any of the other Human Rights obligations which the Irish State agreed to upon becoming a signatory to these legal instruments, but to the best of my knowledge has not been implemented in Irish legislation.


Right to Housing

The passage you refer to is powerful and right. As you rightly say, where housing is concerned it has not been implemented.

They are very clear about excluding shelters and temporary accommodation, as is right.

Graces7

DubCount wrote: »

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

Interesting attribution/transference of ambition. Wondering how many really have such aspirations of grandeur. Or would be happy to have a smaller abode. As many are happy to have HSE hospital care etc.

DubCount

Graces7 wrote: »

Interesting attribution/transference of ambition. Wondering how many really have such aspirations of grandeur. Or would be happy to have a smaller abode. As many are happy to have HSE hospital care etc.

I wonder how many offers of state-provided housing are refused because its in the wrong area, or they want a bigger home, or .......

I wonder how many people have refused HAP in order to get a council house.

I wonder how much arears of rent is owed by people who the state assesses as able to pay, but dont pay.

Is that also attribution/transference of ambition?

Graces7

DubCount wrote: »

I wonder how many offers of state-provided housing are refused because its in the wrong area, or they want a bigger home, or .......

I wonder how many people have refused HAP in order to get a council house.

I wonder how much arears of rent is owed by people who the state assesses as able to pay, but dont pay.

Is that also attribution/transference of ambition?

Now you are needlessly complicating the matter with administrative aspects that reflect your critical attitude of folk, and diverting from the real subject.

Back to base? Abuse of a system or ideal does not negate the ideal. need to focus on those who do not abuse,rather than negate the system because of abuse. Please avoid giving them that power.

And ambition has nothing to do with the ideal or with what I wrote.

My point is that not everyone wants a big house . Writing as a council tenant very happy with a small safe place.

Maybe the transference of ambition is yours.

jimmycrackcorm

I wonder what percentage of that 82% that think there should be a right to housing, would still she is that meant they could not be NIMBY objectors to housing development next to them.

Or co-living becomes more normal because you know, can't object to a right to housing.

Pkiernan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

With rights come duties.

Article 45 is well worth a read bearing in mind it's status.

Not in Ireland, where the professionally unemployed have time to burn but won't help a soul.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Social welfare is a poverty trap that wont allow you to leave in most cases.
It is near impossible to escape from.

Jesus, I've read some sh/te on this site.. :rolleyes:



What are you basing that on? I live in a rough council area and every opportunity is available to those who are bothered.

Of my own social circle from secondary school onwards, everyone is working, most own their own houses (a mix of buying from the council and buying elsewhere privately).

These are the people who have worked at something and made an effort to get by.

There are, however, loads, and loads of people who live beside me and went to school with me who didn't bother doing anything other than get drugged up or play videogames 24/7, and although they've sat on their ass their whole life and never contributed anything, they're now at the age where the council has either offered them housing of their own or is preparing them to move (most of them signed up to the housing list on their 18th birthday, with never an intention to work).

Although they've never lifted a finger, they never had to pay for work costs, training, travel, market-rate rent or mortgage costs, somehow they're at about the same 'level' in life as all the others who busted their humps, despite never working for it. They actually have, in some cases, much nicer houses than the ones that my other friends bought privately.


A girl I know is 28 and got a house off the council that I would estimate to be worth about 275k. We'll say she signed up for the housing list the minute she turned 18, which means the longest she's been 'on the list' is 10 years. Which means any other 28 year old, to be in the same position, has had to save 27,500 per year (roughly €530 per week), just to buy a house with, to be on par with the girl that never worked.

What poverty trap..?

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you basing that on? I live in a rough council area and every opportunity is available to those who are bothered.

Of my own social circle from secondary school onwards, everyone is working, most own their own houses (a mix of buying from the council and buying elsewhere privately).

These are the people who have worked at something and made an effort to get by.

There are, however, loads, and loads of people who live beside me and went to school with me who didn't bother doing anything other than get drugged up or play videogames 24/7, and although they've sat on their ass their whole life and never contributed anything, they're now at the age where the council has either offered them housing of their own or is preparing them to move (most of them signed up to the housing list on their 18th birthday, with never an intention to work).

Although they've never lifted a finger, they never had to pay for work costs, training, travel, market-rate rent or mortgage costs, somehow they're at about the same 'level' in life as all the others who busted their humps, despite never working for it. They actually have, in some cases, much nicer houses than the ones that my other friends bought privately.


A girl I know is 28 and got a house off the council that I would estimate to be worth about 275k. We'll say she signed up for the housing list the minute she turned 18, which means the longest she's been 'on the list' is 10 years. Which means any other 28 year old, to be in the same position, has had to save 27,500 per year (roughly €530 per week), just to buy a house with, to be on par with the girl that never worked.

What poverty trap..?

But you see they dont bother. The minimum wage and social welfare gap is so small its not worth the effort.

I am basing it on my father who just gave up (I suspect due to depression in the 80's) and certain members of my wifes family who just had a few kids got a house and another who is raising his daughter in the back wilds of wicklow with the "no one is going to hire me with these" tattoos. You can say all you want about discrimination and tattoos but people do judge tattoos.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But you see they dont bother. The minimum wage and social welfare gap is so small its not worth the effort.

I am basing it on my father who just gave up (I suspect due to depression in the 80's) and certain members of my wifes family who just had a few kids got a house and another who is raising his daughter in the back wilds of wicklow with the "no one is going to hire me with these" tattoos. You can say all you want about discrimination and tattoos but people do judge tattoos.

Yeah but you said it's a trap that you can't escape, which isn't true. 'Not bothering' is not the same as 'being trapped'.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah but you said it's a trap that you can't escape, which isn't true. 'Not bothering' is not the same as 'being trapped'.

To make the escape worth it you have to jump over the minimum wage to either a university education, a trade or to some sort of business. That takes a massive jump for someone who grew up in a home where education was not valued or you were indoctrinated into the social welfare system. That is a hell of a jump.

Tea drinker

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Housing is not a house. The right to housing could be a room in shared accommodation.

It's a bout shelter, basic amenities like access to sanitary facilities.
Could be a single small space in a converted church or an old sports hall. With a curtain dividing from the next resident. As long as adequate facilites in toilet and showers are available